Originally posted by leonheartmm
it seems like your memory resets every 10 minutes or so{50 first dates}, you didnt see the quote did you. nor did u read it the first time. never being able to see that your blatant denial was exactly the thing it was catered to answer.
shock For the first time your post was devoid of solecism.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and yet again, jia manages to find conveniant one liner replies as an excuse for ignoring and not properly replying to points.
Wrong, this was my most recent reply (among several others) to your posts:
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We cannot continue any meaningful discussion simply because you are fixated on this red-letter fallacy. There is no such animal. The Bible as it is currently written is the Word of God, and it has recorded in it the Words of Christ in red simply to distinguish what Christ said from what others said. But the Bible is still the Will and Word of God with or without the red ink.Unless we are both in agreement that the Bible is the Word of God, there is no point discussing it because you dispute everything that doesn't fit your red-letter complex. What in the world does red ink have to do with what Jesus said? Nothing, here is why. The red-letter was still written by someone other than Jesus Himself.
Can't you see this?
Jesus never personally wrote one Scripture so even the red letter was written by someone else. Your red-letter complex has run its course right off the side of a cliff into the abyss of error.
Let it go.
yea, and that reply was dealt with. repetition and stubbornness do nt constitute meaningful replies. even though the two qualities have always been a hallmark of yours when your try to stall the discussion by tiring the opposition out with nothing of substance. there is a REASON every1 here other than perhaps marchello doesnt take your posts seriosuly{not spite, just fact}. you are unable to support your point of view by anything that could be considered substantial evidence. really, others do a better job of trying to defend the same point better than you.
the basis of the argument was islam worships the same god as jesus did. and by that account it can only be compared against the red letter bible. everything in the red letter bible seemed to be in accordance with islam or close. any argument you proposed was based on the non red letters which is insignificant in trying to prove that islam isnt following he same god as jesus. in the end you came with with the argumet that the hwole RED LETTER argument was flawed only failing to see that you had no argument as far as CHRIST'S words went. nugh said
Okay, speaking of Blue...
YO listen up here's a story
about a little guy that lives in a blue world
and all day and all night and everything he sees
is just blue like him inside and outside
blue his house with a blue little window
and a blue corvette
and everything is blue for him and hisself
and everybody around
cos he ain't got nobody to listen to
i'm blue da ba dee da ba die...
cause the pastor told me tooo.
i have a blue house with a blue window.
blue is the colour of all that i wear.
blue are the streets and all the trees are blue.
i have a girlfriend and she is so blue.
blue are the people here that walk around,
blue like my corvette, it's standing outside.
blue are the words i say and what i think.
blue are the feelings that live inside me.
i'm blue da ba dee da ba die cause my pastor told me tooo. 😄 😄
I was in trans from La Cross when a Jesus on the Cross.
I turned and I tossed. I'm so blue how bout you?
Blue little face, and blue little words, and blue little church
that changed it all to blue.
It's blue that we read and blue that we see, and everything is so, so blue.
It's blue...blue da ba dee da ba die.
It's blue..blue da ba dee da ba die...All the hell churches are putting us through.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yea, and that reply was dealt with. repetition and stubbornness do nt constitute meaningful replies. even though the two qualities have always been a hallmark of yours when your try to stall the discussion by tiring the opposition out with nothing of substance. there is a REASON every1 here other than perhaps marchello doesnt take your posts seriosuly{not spite, just fact}. you are unable to support your point of view by anything that could be considered substantial evidence. really, others do a better job of trying to defend the same point better than you.the basis of the argument was islam worships the same god as jesus did. and by that account it can only be compared against the red letter bible. everything in the red letter bible seemed to be in accordance with islam or close. any argument you proposed was based on the non red letters which is insignificant in trying to prove that islam isnt following he same god as jesus. in the end you came with with the argumet that the hwole RED LETTER argument was flawed only failing to see that you had no argument as far as CHRIST'S words went. nugh said
Your whole premise is tremendously flawed. Your basically insinuating that the entire Bible--minus the red-letter text--is not the Word of God or that it is an invalid Source to base my faith, the faith of others, church doctrine, beliefs, tenets, and everything else that pertains to a believer. Don't you realize what you are saying? Then to add insult to injury you claim that the red-letter text accords with Islam. If you are alluding to your misinterpretation of Jesus words in John 12.32 you are wrong (sorry but you are). I have already pointed out your error with regard to that Scripture. Jesus was talking about dying (you would know this if you hadn't omitted that last clause because it tells you point blank that He was talking about His death). Here is my post to you with respect to this issue:
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You seem to have difficulty interpreting Scripture. Ironically, the same Scripture verse that you took out of its context [b]actually explains what Jesus meant when He made the statement about being lifted up and drawing all peoples to Himself, but you seem to have conveniently omitted that part (it is in the very next verse). Here it is:John 12:32-34
32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. 34 The people answered Him, “We have heard from the law that the Christ remains forever; and how can You say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?”Did you see that leonheartmm? It says,
"...This He said, signifying by what death He would die."
In order to understand a passage of Scripture you have to be careful not to remove it from its setting. First examine the passage in its context. Second, study the verses that immediately precede and follow the verse (or verses) that you want to understand. If you had done that you would have known that Jesus was talking about His crucifixion. He was not talking about being lifted up to God (as you assert) because the context states that He said what He said signifying by what death--not being lifted up into heaven while being indiscernible--He would die. Bear in mind the Qu'ran states that Jesus was not killed but that god (Allah) lifted Him up (which is categorically false). Besides Jesus Father is YHWH and YWHW does not mean god no matter what language it is translated into. If Jesus was so indiscernible then how come his mother and disciple John recognized Him? They were all standing right there. The whole theory that you espouse is embarrassingly implausible and absurd. I don't know any mother that is incapable of recognizing her own son--imposter/look-alike or not.
John 19:25-27
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. [/B]
So as you can clearly see leonheartmm Jesus was not talking about being lifted in the sense the Qu’ran talks about, Jesus was talking about dying on the cross—just like the Bible states. Jesus was crucified just like the Bible affirms. What you have done is misinterpreted the Bible, and the words of Jesus. The Bible—red-letter or not—does not accord with the Qu’ran because the two did not come from the same Source. You have misinterpreted the words of Jesus to make it appear as though it accords with the words of Christ.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your whole premise is tremendously flawed. Your basically insinuating that the entire Bible--minus the red-letter text--is not the Word of God or that it is an invalid Source to base my faith, the faith of others, church doctrine, beliefs, tenets, and everything else that pertains to a believer. Don't you realize what you are saying? Then to add insult to injury you claim that the red-letter text accords with Islam. If you are alluding to your misinterpretation of Jesus words in John 12.32 you are wrong (sorry but you are). I have already pointed out your error with regard to that Scripture. Jesus was talking about dying (you would know this if you hadn't omitted that last clause because it tells you point blank that He was talking about His death). Here is my post to you with respect to this issue:So as you can clearly see leonheartmm Jesus was not talking about being lifted in the sense the Qu’ran talks about, Jesus was talking about dying on the cross—just like the Bible states. Jesus was crucified just like the Bible affirms. What you have done is misinterpreted the Bible, and the words of Jesus. The Bible—red-letter or not—does not accord with the Qu’ran because the two did not come from the same Source. You have misinterpreted the words of Jesus to make it appear as though it accords with the words of Christ.
repitition, stubbornness and inability to comprehend. sorry, you dont get it. islam claims to worship the same god as JESUS,, and jesus alone. not his FOLLOWERS who islam beleives have misinterpreted the relegion. therefore "ISLAM'S CLAIM" can only be judges against "jesus's words". it passes the test, jesus's words are not against islam.
on the other hand, you BELEIVE{without evidence. that si called FAITH not LOGIC}, that the words of the saints are also HEAVENLY INSPIRED{islam doesnt} and in THOSE WORDS{insignificant to islam and not part of its claim}and those words ALONE, we see an interpretation of jesus's words{which as an INTERPRETATION, one among many not deserving of any special significance above other interpretation, by any1, other than perhaps the people who have FAITH in the saints which isnt based on logic}, which ISNT in accordance with islam. but since islam never claimed to follow such saints, nor thinks them holy, it doesnt AFFECT the fact that JESUS'S words can be very easily{more so than the saint's interpretation} be interpreted into islamic accordance. and hence the only authority these saints have is on the people who have evidenceless FAITH in them being true and holy. therefore islam can only be judged against the RED LETTER BIBLE, for verification of claims.
logically islam is in accordance with the god of JESUS. and it never claims to be in accordance with the god of the SAINTS{and dont say it was the same god, that is faith not logic}. hence they follow the same god. your really in no position to ASSES premises and pass judgement jia. you havent given evidence of any minset which would give u that authority. you follow because of faith in face of evidence to oppose. atleast stick to FAITH n not try to force in false logic.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
repitition, stubbornness and inability to comprehend. sorry, you dont get it. islam claims to worship the same god as JESUS,, and jesus alone. not his FOLLOWERS who islam beleives have misinterpreted the relegion. therefore "ISLAM'S CLAIM" can only be judges against "jesus's words". it passes the test, jesus's words are not against islam.on the other hand, you BELEIVE{without evidence. that si called FAITH not LOGIC}, that the words of the saints are also HEAVENLY INSPIRED{islam doesnt} and in THOSE WORDS{insignificant to islam and not part of its claim}and those words ALONE, we see an interpretation of jesus's words{which as an INTERPRETATION, one among many not deserving of any special significance above other interpretation, by any1, other than perhaps the people who have FAITH in the saints which isnt based on logic}, which ISNT in accordance with islam. but since islam never claimed to follow such saints, nor thinks them holy, it doesnt AFFECT the fact that JESUS'S words can be very easily{more so than the saint's interpretation} be interpreted into islamic accordance. and hence the only authority these saints have is on the people who have evidenceless FAITH in them being true and holy. therefore islam can only be judged against the RED LETTER BIBLE, for verification of claims.
logically islam is in accordance with the god of JESUS. and it never claims to be in accordance with the god of the SAINTS{and dont say it was the same god, that is faith not logic}. hence they follow the same god. your really in no position to ASSES premises and pass judgement jia. you havent given evidence of any minset which would give u that authority. you follow because of faith in face of evidence to oppose. atleast stick to FAITH n not try to force in false logic.
I have one question for you leonheartmm: if Jesus direct words were written by His followers (i.e. the saints) then why do you have so much confidence in them? Why do you base your entire premise on this "red-letter" obsession/fixation when Jesus did not write one word that He ever said? All of Jesus' words were recorded by those who followed and/or believed in Him (i.e. the saints).
You are contradicting yourself.
You cast doubt on the Bible (as a whole) but yet you give credence to the "red-letter" text which ironically was also not written by Jesus. Furthermore, you call into question Jesus' followers (i.e. the saints) yet they were the ones who recorded what He said, yes including the "red-letter" text that you embrace in your argument and use to attempt to support your claim that the Bible and the Qu'ran accord (although they do not as I have proven), or that Jesus' words accord with Islam (again I have gloriously refuted this claim).
Can you explain your reasons for doing this?
Originally posted by Quark_666
The red letter probably didn't go through the kind of editing that the bible did. Heck, I don't think any book has ever gone through the kind of editing that the bible has.
You are making red ink way to important. The only purpose for the red ink was to set off or differentiate the speaker, in this case Jesus, from the other speakers. That is it. Red ink is not more holy, or divine than black ink. Get over the obsession with red ink.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have one question for you leonheartmm: if Jesus [b]direct words were written by His followers (i.e. the saints) then why do you have so much confidence in them? Why do you base your entire premise on this "red-letter" obsession/fixation when Jesus did not write one word that He ever said? All of Jesus' words were recorded by those who followed and/or believed in Him (i.e. the saints).You are contradicting yourself.
You cast doubt on the Bible (as a whole) but yet you give credence to the "red-letter" text which ironically was also not written by Jesus. Furthermore, you call into question Jesus' followers (i.e. the saints) yet they were the ones who recorded what He said, yes including the "red-letter" text that you embrace in your argument and use to attempt to support your claim that the Bible and the Qu'ran accord (although they do not as I have proven), or that Jesus' words accord with Islam (again I have gloriously refuted this claim).
Can you explain your reasons for doing this? [/B]
you fail to understand or eply to my post and derail the topic by going off in another direction altogether, which has already been dealt with.
neither you nor i know whether the saints were or were not actually copying down the words of christ himself or as he said it. it is very probably however thatthey were. you cant know for a fact just like you cant know if the entire world media is just a gimmik recording made up stories to brainwash you. however, as a complete statement that is higly imprbable so you choose to think of the media as more or less fact BASED. otherwise you can not function as nuthing can be emperically proven 100%.
you also fail to understand that your reasoning is immaterial to the discussion at HAND. it isnt my personal claim but the claim of ISLAM that they follow the same god as JESUS "NOT" people who claim to follow him in the name of christianity. hence it can only be judged with what can be considered the most PROBABLE record of HIS SPEACH. furthermore, neither islam{explicitly or generally} nor i am calling the saints, LIARS. it isnt their ability to record authenticity that is in question{i.e. the thing that cud affect the validity of the red letter being jesus's word}, it is their ability ti INTERPRET correctly jesus's words and hence write down what THEY thought of the subject that is in question. the other thing of theirs in question is their ABILITY TO BE HEAVENLY INSPIRED, which the muslims do not beleive. again them not being heavenly inspired doesnt make them any worse recorders of people's words. so your whole argument of red=non red, because of the writers falls into oblivion. specially since in islam's claims it is immaterial and not significant. and you havent replied to the points in my last post,
Originally posted by leonheartmm
repitition, stubbornness and inability to comprehend. sorry, you dont get it. islam claims to worship the same god as JESUS,, and jesus alone. not his FOLLOWERS who islam beleives have misinterpreted the relegion. therefore "ISLAM'S CLAIM" can only be judges against "jesus's words". it passes the test, jesus's words are not against islam.on the other hand, you BELEIVE{without evidence. that si called FAITH not LOGIC}, that the words of the saints are also HEAVENLY INSPIRED{islam doesnt} and in THOSE WORDS{insignificant to islam and not part of its claim}and those words ALONE, we see an interpretation of jesus's words{which as an INTERPRETATION, one among many not deserving of any special significance above other interpretation, by any1, other than perhaps the people who have FAITH in the saints which isnt based on logic}, which ISNT in accordance with islam. but since islam never claimed to follow such saints, nor thinks them holy, it doesnt AFFECT the fact that JESUS'S words can be very easily{more so than the saint's interpretation} be interpreted into islamic accordance. and hence the only authority these saints have is on the people who have evidenceless FAITH in them being true and holy. therefore islam can only be judged against the RED LETTER BIBLE, for verification of claims.
logically islam is in accordance with the god of JESUS. and it never claims to be in accordance with the god of the SAINTS{and dont say it was the same god, that is faith not logic}. hence they follow the same god. your really in no position to ASSES premises and pass judgement jia. you havent given evidence of any minset which would give u that authority. you follow because of faith in face of evidence to oppose. atleast stick to FAITH n not try to force in false logic.
the only thing your greatness has managed to do is GLORIOUSLY misunderstand the argument being made, and GLORIOUSLY proven your inability to debate on topics concerning your "faith" i.e. illogical trust.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are making red ink way to important. The only purpose for the red ink was to set off or differentiate the speaker, in this case Jesus, from the other speakers. That is it. Red ink is not more holy, or divine than black ink. Get over the obsession with red ink.
RIIIIIGHT. so to the followers of CHRISTianity, the actual word of CHRIST hold no more significance then than the contradicting words of saintS. 🙄
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are making red ink way to important. The only purpose for the red ink was to set off or differentiate the speaker, in this case Jesus, from the other speakers. That is it. Red ink is not more holy, or divine than black ink. Get over the obsession with red ink.
Very true. The reason is because none of the bible is divine or holy. 😉 It is all the same; man made...
Originally posted by leonheartmm
you fail to understand or eply to my post and derail the topic by going off in another direction altogether, which has already been dealt with.neither you nor i know whether the saints were or were not actually copying down the words of christ himself or as he said it. it is very probably however thatthey were. you cant know for a fact just like you cant know if the entire world media is just a gimmik recording made up stories to brainwash you. however, as a complete statement that is higly imprbable so you choose to think of the media as more or less fact BASED. otherwise you can not function as nuthing can be emperically proven 100%.
you also fail to understand that your reasoning is immaterial to the discussion at HAND. it isnt my personal claim but the claim of ISLAM that they follow the same god as JESUS "NOT" people who claim to follow him in the name of christianity. hence it can only be judged with what can be considered the most PROBABLE record of HIS SPEACH. furthermore, neither islam{explicitly or generally} nor i am calling the saints, LIARS. it isnt their ability to record authenticity that is in question{i.e. the thing that cud affect the validity of the red letter being jesus's word}, it is their ability ti INTERPRET correctly jesus's words and hence write down what THEY thought of the subject that is in question. the other thing of theirs in question is their ABILITY TO BE HEAVENLY INSPIRED, which the muslims do not beleive. again them not being heavenly inspired doesnt make them any worse recorders of people's words. so your whole argument of red=non red, because of the writers falls into oblivion. specially since in islam's claims it is immaterial and not significant. and you havent replied to the points in my last post,
the only thing your greatness has managed to do is GLORIOUSLY misunderstand the argument being made, and GLORIOUSLY proven your inability to debate on topics concerning your "faith" i.e. illogical trust.
The question still remains....I just exposed the weakness in your stance: your much touted red-letter premise.
Why didn't you explain (directly) why you place so much importance on the red-letter text? That was my only question. I don't see an answer anywhere in your typical, verbose post. You appear to have avoided my direct question. If your premise is that Jesus' words (i.e. the red-letter text) accords with Islam then my question to you is why do you believe this if the red-letter text was not written by Jesus? Jesus did not write one iota of Scripture (everyone and their mother knows this). Jesus' followers wrote your much cited red-letter text but yet (inexplicably) you base your whole "Islam accords with the direct, red-letter, words of Jesus" premise on this fact.
How? Why? Care to explain leonheartmm?
Try not to avoid the question again. I can tell by certain things that you say that you are a very bright individual so you have the tools to put together a solid explanation for why you base your entire argument (again, inexplicably) on a foundation that runs counter to your stance. If no other text in the Bible is valid because it is not the "red-letter, words of Jesus" then you are up a creek in a boat with no oars because--news flash--none of the Bible is the direct words of Jesus because it was all written by His followers. Time and time again I have quoted passages (some non-red inked text) that firmly support and buttress my premise that the Bible and the Qu'ran do not agree, accord, nor originate from the same Source. But you repeatedly refuse to accept any other text in Scripture that is not in red ink. So you have left me no other choice than to pull the rug out from under your feet and burst your bubble. There is no "Gospel according to Jesus" anywhere in the Bible. But I do see the Gospel according to Matthew (an apostle of Jesus); Gospel according to Mark (a believer); Gospel according to Luke (a believer); and Gospel according to John (an apostle of Jesus). There really is no such animal as the "direct" words of Jesus in the literal sense. However, there are the "recorded" words of Jesus as those who believed in and/or followed Him set down in writing from eyewitness accounts. But those words were still written by those who followed/believe in Jesus--not by Jesus Himself. So, how can you have so much trust and confidence in the words of Jesus when they were written by the same writers that wrote the non-red text?
In short, you reject non-red inked text but you embrace red-letter text? The only problem is that the same red-letter text that you espouse was written by the same authors whose writings you casually and promptly dismiss (i.e. the non-red ink text).
You have committed an egregious contradiction that undermines your whole argument and looks like, walks like, and talks like a double standard of the highest/worst order.
Again, I have exposed the weakness in your stance if you cannot defend it then there is nothing left to discuss (right?). I am not trying to win anything. My original premise has not wavered: the Bible and the Qu'ran are not from the same Source. I firmly believe that I have proven this.
The question still remains[/B]....I just exposed the weakness in your stance: your much touted red-letter premise.
no it doesnt for one. as for the second part 😆 😆 😆 , how can you expose sum1's weakness without saying anything????? 😆 😆
Why didn't you explain (directly) why you place so much importance on the red-letter text? That was my only question. I don't see an answer anywhere in your typical, verbose post. You appear to have avoided my direct question. If your premise is that Jesus' words (i.e. the red-letter text) accords with Islam then my question to you is why do you believe this if the red-letter text was not written by Jesus? Jesus did not write one iota of Scripture (everyone and their mother knows this). Jesus' followers wrote your much cited red-letter text but yet (inexplicably) you base your whole "Islam accords with the direct, red-letter, words of Jesus" premise on this fact.
i place as much emphasis on it as it is a premis of the arguments being produced. when YOU say that you beleive in jesus, and yet you and the saints contradict or add to what he said, then i put emphasis on your contradictory stance. when ISLAM claims it is based on JESUS'S words, i place emphasis on it. and repeating sickeningly old point which have bean dealt with time and time again{including my last post} only makes it seem liek your trying to bore the opposition into submittion. i gave a whole explanation on that comprising the length of my entire last post. care to read the part that deals with exactly THAT argument again?
neither you nor i know whether the saints were or were not actually copying down the words of christ himself or as he said it. it is very probably however thatthey were. you cant know for a fact just like you cant know if the entire world media is just a gimmik recording made up stories to brainwash you. however, as a complete statement that is higly imprbable so you choose to think of the media as more or less fact BASED. otherwise you can not function as nuthing can be emperically proven 100%.you also fail to understand that your reasoning is immaterial to the discussion at HAND. it isnt my personal claim but the claim of ISLAM that they follow the same god as JESUS "NOT" people who claim to follow him in the name of christianity. hence it can only be judged with what can be considered the most PROBABLE record of HIS SPEACH. furthermore, neither islam{explicitly or generally} nor i am calling the saints, LIARS. it isnt their ability to record authenticity that is in question{i.e. the thing that cud affect the validity of the red letter being jesus's word}, it is their ability ti INTERPRET correctly jesus's words and hence write down what THEY thought of the subject that is in question. the other thing of theirs in question is their ABILITY TO BE HEAVENLY INSPIRED, which the muslims do not beleive. again them not being heavenly inspired doesnt make them any worse recorders of people's words. so your whole argument of red=non red, because of the writers falls into oblivion. specially since in islam's claims it is immaterial and not significant. and you havent replied to the points in my last post,
there, does that spell it our for you?
How? Why? Care to explain leonheartmm?Try not to avoid the question again. I can tell by certain things that you say that you are a very bright individual so you have the tools to put together a solid explanation for why you base your entire argument (again, inexplicably) on a foundation that runs counter to your stance. If no other text in the Bible is valid because it is not the "red-letter, words of Jesus" then you are up a creek in a boat with no oars because--news flash--none of the Bible is the direct words of Jesus because it was all written by His followers. Time and time again I have quoted passages (some non-red inked text) that firmly support and buttress my premise that the Bible and the Qu'ran do not agree, accord, nor originate from the same Source. But you repeatedly refuse to accept any other text in Scripture that is not in red ink. So you have left me no other choice than to pull the rug out from under your feet and burst your bubble. There is no "Gospel according to Jesus" anywhere in the Bible. But I do see the Gospel according to Matthew (an apostle of Jesus); Gospel according to Mark (a believer); Gospel according to Luke (a believer); and Gospel according to John (an apostle of Jesus). There really is no such animal as the "direct" words of Jesus in the literal sense. However, there are the "recorded" words of Jesus as those who believed in and/or followed Him set down in writing from eyewitness accounts. But those words were still written by those who followed/believe in Jesus--not by Jesus Himself. So, how can you have so much trust and confidence in the words of Jesus when they were written by the same writers that wrote the non-red text?
In short, you reject non-red inked text but you embrace red-letter text? The only problem is that the same red-letter text that you espouse was written by the same authors whose writings you casually and promptly dismiss (i.e. the non-red ink text).
burst my bubble??? 😆 😆 😆 😆 . come on, even u can do better. and its inapt for sum1 whos every post has been countered by numerous other people and he fails to realise it. your playing your little word games again jia. and my last post countered this argument. please TRY and think of sumthing original next time.
You have committed an egregious contradiction that undermines your whole argument and looks like, walks like, and talks like a double standard of the highest/worst order.
thats your newest delusion.
Again, I have exposed the weakness in your stance if you cannot defend it then there is nothing left to discuss (right?). I am not trying to win anything. [B]My original premise has not wavered: the Bible and the Qu'ran are not from the same Source. I firmly believe that I have proven this.
LOL, ultimatums based on empty threats? puhleaase. youve done nuthing but repeat the same thing that was dealt with, with minimal rephrasing i might add.